ABSTRACT
There is disagreement among researchers regarding the conceptualization of resilience as a dynamic state or stable trait. Aiming to shed light on the state-versus-trait debate, we explored the stability and construct validity of four of the most frequently utilized state or trait resilience scales in a longitudinal assessment. Additionally, we examined the predictive validity of these scales. Our study was conducted before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, which served as collectively experienced adversity. Correlations among the resilience scales and among resilience scales and Big Five personality traits were strong. All except one scale showed high test-retest correlations. Experience of an additional critical life event during the pandemic led to an increase in resilience. Other than in cross-sectional studies, associations between resilience and psychological distress were weak, because personality and baseline psychological distress were controlled for. Nevertheless, next to personality, resilience explained additional variance in distress change. Our results show relatively high stability of resilience overall. Yet, they also confirm dynamic resilience features, suggesting that resilience change occurs with significant adversity, leading to improved adaptation. To gauge the true association between resilience and mental health, baseline levels of these variables as well as personality traits should be considered.
ABSTRACT
Since the Covid-19 outbreak, pandemic-specific stressors have potentiated the-already severe-stress load across the world. However, stress is more than an adverse state, and chronic exposure is causally involved in the development of mental and physical disease. We ask the question whether resilience and the Big Five personality traits predict the biological stress response to the first lockdown in Germany. In a prospective, longitudinal, observational study, N = 80 adult volunteers completed an internet-based survey prior to the first Covid-19-related fatality in Germany (T0), during the first lockdown period (T1), and during the subsequent period of contact restrictions (T2). Hair strands for the assessment of systemic cortisol and cortisone levels were collected at T2. Higher neuroticism predicted higher hair cortisol, cortisone and subjective stress levels. Higher extraversion predicted higher hair cortisone levels. Resilience showed no effects on subjective or physiological stress markers. Our study provides longitudinal evidence that neuroticism and extraversion have predictive utility for the accumulation of biological stress over the course of the pandemic. While in pre-pandemic times individuals high in neuroticism are typically at risk for worse health outcomes, extraverted individuals tend to be protected. We conclude that, in the pandemic context, we cannot simply generalize from pre-pandemic knowledge. Neurotic individuals may currently suffer due to their general emotional lability. Extraverted individuals may primarily be socially stressed. Individualized stress management programs need to be developed, and offered in a lockdown-friendly format, to minimize the stress burden caused by Covid-19 or future pandemics and to protect the most severely affected individuals from the development of stress-associated disease.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Adult , Communicable Disease Control , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Personality , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Stress, PhysiologicalABSTRACT
[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1007/s00278-021-00505-6.].
ABSTRACT
Based upon the findings related to the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on human living conditions and psychological health, in the first part of this review the authors discuss the consequences of the pandemic for public health. It is surprising to see that related to public health but also psychological factors and sequelae of the pandemic, a broad knowledge was already available based upon former pandemics and disasters long before the outbreak of COVID-19. This knowledge has been used very sparsely, if at all, for health political decisions. In view of the social significance of the pandemic and its social impact, findings from group psychology and group dynamics seem to be specifically important for a better understanding of behavior within the population as well as the conceptualization of public health interventions. An increase in psychological disorders was described related to the pandemic. For the treatment of these disorders, a range of psychotherapeutic approaches including evidence-based group psychotherapy are available. Whereas the use of telemedical and digital techniques is increasingly more common within individual psychotherapy, many questions are still open related to online group treatment.
ABSTRACT
The pandemic triggered by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has, apart from a few positive effects, led to massive and manifold impairments of human living conditions for which this article suggests a taxonomy. According to the severity, these impairments have resulted in a deterioration of the psychological well-being for many people and an increased vulnerability for psychological disorders. This has been confirmed by numerous studies and review articles, which also dealt with the question of factors that positively as well as negatively influencing mental health. This review shows that, e.g. suffering from COVID-19 disease, younger age and female gender as well as a pre-existing psychiatric or somatic disease must be considered as special risk factors. Psychotherapists are confronted with the pandemic in different ways. In view of the societal impact psychotherapists have a special role. In addition, the pandemic raises questions on specific issues and specific groups which must be addressed.